Xmas Posted January 24, 2011 Share #81 Posted January 24, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Something special would go if Leica became mass-market, because it would make mass market decisions, and it would respond to the lowest common denominator (I have wondered for some time if the Summarit range was to fit this purposes - no slight intended to these lenses or the people who use them). You have not understood what a f/2.5 provides, it is a smaller, lighter, better lens... you seem to be operating on the basis if the proles cannot afford it must be good, or at least better, The later post 94 Elmar f/2.8 & CV f/2.5 are also good, but the Elmar did not motivate enough of the dentists to buy, it is light and compact in the gbag. as Leica hasn't responded to demand by having zooms or auto-focus, or EVFs or HD video), and we will all be the poorer for it. The various compact cameras with adopters would be cheaper then Leica could offer, commercially exposed for them to risk/attempt, but if Leica do go under there will be a glut of nice lenses, as opposed to current shortage,and we will be the richer for it. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Hi Xmas, Take a look here What is wrong with Leica?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wattsy Posted January 24, 2011 Share #82 Posted January 24, 2011 Something special would go if Leica became mass-market, because it would make mass market decisions, and it would respond to the lowest common denominator (I have wondered for some time if the Summarit range was to fit this purposes - no slight intended to these lenses or the people who use them). The Summarit lenses - at £800+ a pop - are hardly mass market. I think Leica's only mistake with the Summarit range was in underestimating how ludicrously snobbish many of their customers can be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveYork Posted January 24, 2011 Share #83 Posted January 24, 2011 Whether unavoidable or not, Leica does seem to be missing an opportunity to sell lenses to willing buyers. Over time, the mystic of Leica will wane as Zeiss and Voigtlander close in. Many people, who just a few years ago were die-hard leica, are now considering lenses from Zeiss and Voightlander, not only suitable alternatives, but the more logical choice, given price and performance issues. I suspect Leicas' market share in the M mounts lenses will further erode. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted January 24, 2011 Share #84 Posted January 24, 2011 The Summarit lenses - at £800+ a pop - are hardly mass market. I think Leica's only mistake with the Summarit range was in underestimating how ludicrously snobbish many of their customers can be. GBP 970 beer token for change... Lomos are expensive too. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted January 24, 2011 Share #85 Posted January 24, 2011 Whether unavoidable or not, Leica does seem to be missing an opportunity to sell lenses to willing buyers. Over time, the mystic of Leica will wane as Zeiss and Voigtlander close in. Many people, who just a few years ago were die-hard leica, are now considering lenses from Zeiss and Voightlander, not only suitable alternatives, but the more logical choice, given price and performance issues. I suspect Leicas' market share in the M mounts lenses will further erode. The containing patent expired in '03-'04, for the M mount, hence the ZM camera and... Zeiss go to Cosina cause of patents... Konica are perhaps the best of the non Leica lenses, but CV are cheaper, I got 16. Wait until there is another Digital M rfdr and I dont mean the M10. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted January 24, 2011 Share #86 Posted January 24, 2011 Whether unavoidable or not, Leica does seem to be missing an opportunity to sell lenses to willing buyers. Over time, the mystic of Leica will wane as Zeiss and Voigtlander close in. Many people, who just a few years ago were die-hard leica, are now considering lenses from Zeiss and Voightlander, not only suitable alternatives, but the more logical choice, given price and performance issues. I suspect Leicas' market share in the M mounts lenses will further erode. Steve, I doubt it. Demand is relatively inelastic and has been for some considerable time. There are a number of reasons to buy non-Leica lenses - I have a number of LTM CV lenses because they are the only new alternative for my II. I also have the CV 35mm 2.5 Pancake because I prefer the rendition to the Summicron (I sold one in preference) and a Sonnar because, again, I prefer the rendition. Lenses are like paintbrushes. You choose the one to give you the result you want. I personally don't want clinical perfection, so the current Leica lens lineup does not thrill me as a result. It also fails to excite me because I am neither a snob nor an early-adopter acquisition-monkey. The point is, those who want Leica lenses do so for many reasons. for many of them there is no substitute. Good for them, and long may they continue. But there is no point in them whingeing about restricted market availability of a premium product. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swanny66 Posted January 24, 2011 Share #87 Posted January 24, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think Leica is doing the right thing. They are not trying to grow outside of their means for short term gains. With all the people buying the M9 (and being first time Leica owners), there is going to be considerable demand on this basis alone. In a couple years people will complain about the prices and the number of lenses they see on the shelves.... I have had no problem finding lenses by shopping around. If you are waiting on B&H, Adorama, etc. you will be waiting a while. But I am not naming my retailer:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted January 25, 2011 Share #88 Posted January 25, 2011 "We have done a feasibility study into the R10 and found we are not able to produce it at a price that would make it even remotely competetive. Since when have Leica been 'competitive' with any of their products? Who's the competition for an R mount DSLR? I think they meant to say 'remotely profitable for the few we'd sell, and the price we'd have to charge would be huge as a result, which would look a bit bad in the range if it cost more than the S2' Leica's only misstep here was to get the R acolytes fired up 'there will be a solution for you!' before fully working out how feasible it was. I'd be disappointed too I guess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HelgeK Posted January 25, 2011 Share #89 Posted January 25, 2011 I live in Hamburg / Germany. Most of the popular beginner SLRs from Canon and Nikon are out of stock here right now, same matter with some of their lenses. The traders say due to the economic groth the demand is larger than expected, rgds, Helge Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 25, 2011 Share #90 Posted January 25, 2011 Since when have Leica been 'competitive' with any of their products? Who's the competition for an R mount DSLR? Since always.Otherwise the camera division would have lasted until middle1930,at a guess. Yes,in the DSLR market the competition is murderous, as those are not niche products. The mount is not interesting from a sales point of view, a 5DII will work with R lenses, for instance.So Leica could charge a bit -but not thousands- more for the lack of an adapter,that is all. Etc.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted January 25, 2011 Share #91 Posted January 25, 2011 Since when have Leica been 'competitive' with any of their products? Who's the competition for an R mount DSLR? I think they meant to say 'remotely profitable for the few we'd sell, and the price we'd have to charge would be huge as a result, which would look a bit bad in the range if it cost more than the S2' Leica's only misstep here was to get the R acolytes fired up 'there will be a solution for you!' before fully working out how feasible it was. I'd be disappointed too I guess. Leica competed with Nikon and Canon until '59 when Nikon went to SLR, '69 when Canon went to SLR, the Leitz kit was more expensive, and not necessarily better but still sold real well. Then they tried with the M5 which nearly sank them The DMR was commercial failure and exposed as the development investement was never likely to succeed. Being too late to market place, is like sending a kissogram to J. Iscariot. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 25, 2011 Share #92 Posted January 25, 2011 I'm not sure the DMR was a specific commercial failure - the whole planned production run sold out. The reason it was discontinued lay elsewhere- the collaboration with the builder came to an end. In the general picture it was more like a comparative succes.On the whole the SLR line never brought a profit -it was always carried by the M line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted January 25, 2011 Share #93 Posted January 25, 2011 I'm not sure the DMR was a specific commercial failure - the whole planned production run sold out. The reason it was discontinued lay elsewhere- the collaboration with the builder came to an end. In the general picture it was more like a comparative succes.On the whole the SLR line never brought a profit -it was always carried by the M line. It was expensive to develop, lots of advertising and they sold 2360(?), that is abject failure, if you say this was planned, it is still abject failure. It is like planning to have Dodo for Xmas lunch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 25, 2011 Share #94 Posted January 25, 2011 My figure is closer to 4000, but that doesn't change the argument. The development was not done by Leica, it was outsourced on a budget based on projected sales from a production run of 5000. I doubt they lost money on it, certainly not like they lost money on the SL2 and M5 for instance. If you look for disasters, Leica's company history certainly contains a few, but not the DMR. I was interested when it was announced, but I cannot recall advertising, I must confess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted January 25, 2011 Share #95 Posted January 25, 2011 Since always.Otherwise the camera division would have lasted until middle1930,at a guess. Yes,in the DSLR market the competition is murderous, as those are not niche products. The mount is not interesting from a sales point of view, a 5DII will work with R lenses, for instance.So Leica could charge a bit -but not thousands- more for the lack of an adapter,that is all. Etc.... Way back when - yes - they were a camera company amongst many others. In recent times they've moved away from the mainstream and become something else, with most of their customers not being 'price sensitive' for one reason or another. What is incongruous is the notion that an R10 would not be released at a 'competitive' price, when a) their customers (largely) aren't that fussed on price for products they really want (M9, Noctilux etc) there IS no competition. If you're price-sensitive, you bought a 5DmkII already. If what you want is a 5DmkII-ish made by Leica and with an R mount for your R lenses, then Leica are the only ones who can sell you that. I stand by my observation that they don't mean 'competitive' they mean 'even remotely affordable'. It's still odd though that they'd announce something then decide not to based on how much it might cost. Did they not think to run the numbers before mentioning such a project? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted January 25, 2011 Share #96 Posted January 25, 2011 Leica competed with Nikon and Canon until '59 when Nikon went to SLR, '69 when Canon went to SLR, the Leitz kit was more expensive, and not necessarily better but still sold real well. Indeed - I guess I actually meant 'when recently have Leica attempted to be competitive in terms of price' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted January 25, 2011 Share #97 Posted January 25, 2011 It still beggars belief though that they'd promise something then decide not to based on how much it might cost. Did they not think to run the numbers before mentioning such a project? I shall say this slowly. They. Did. Not. Promise. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 25, 2011 Share #98 Posted January 25, 2011 As understand it they assembled a team to formulate the design parameters and assess the building costs. The price level/sales projection didn't work out and that was it. The lowest price would have been 6000 Euro, but then it would have to sell in numbers that would bring it in competition with the top-end models of Nikon and Canon. A fight they could not win. Had it been built in a few thousand run, just for the R community, the price would have gone ballistic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 25, 2011 Share #99 Posted January 25, 2011 I shall say this slowly. They. Did. Not. Promise. Regards, Bill Even if it had been a promise (which not), it would have been a suicide pact. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fluff Posted January 25, 2011 Share #100 Posted January 25, 2011 I shall say this slowly. They. Did. Not. Promise. Regards, Bill I actually re-edited my post to remove that word. However they evidently did 'expect' to release it, and to me expectation is a bit stronger then aspiration. For example if I expect you to pay me back that £10 I leant you, it's a bit stronger than a hope that you will. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.